> A lot of historical figures contradict the prevailing narrative [that trauma never makes you stronger].

I'd argue that the key word here is "trauma"; I think _adversity_ can make you stronger (more disciplined, and more focused), but I think that Dr. Bernstein is using the word "trauma" in its technical, medical, sense, i.e. "Psychological trauma is caused by an adverse experience, or series of experiences, that result in an injury that changes the way the brain functions, impairing neurophysiological, psychological, and cognitive functioning." [0]

[0] https://www.med.upenn.edu/traumaresponse/trauma.html

That's a silly and highly unscientific definition that there is no way of demonstrating outside of "just so stories". Oh, someone had an experience and afterwards have symptoms - it must have been trauma.

There is large heterogeneity in the reaction of individuals to the sane exact experience, and sometimes what initially appears damaging ends up doing the opposite.

I would look up the life history of Temüjin, Viktor Frankl, and others. Seriously. Do a quick web search.

There is a circular definition here. If we define trauma in terms of harmful outcomes, it's bad by definition, but that's arguing semantics and not psychology. The slipperiness comes in when we switch definitions mid-paragraph.

They are the exceptions, that's why we talk about them.

No, they're not. Learn some history. You'll see profiles of many people have that pathway.

You'll also see virtually everyone 300 years ago was exposed to things which would be considered traumatic today. It's how we evolved.

We've got a bad theory of trauma and resilience.